To whom it may concern-

I’m not quite sure if you’re monitor the bills that go through congress, but there are two bills that would affect you directly.

One is HR 3101, and one is S 3304.

Both have to do with internet captioning. HR 3101 has passed the House, and is now in the Senate. S 3304 has passed, and is now in the House.

The only thing left for them to do prior to sending it to the President for his signature is reconciliation. So I would think it is a foregone conclusion to say one of both bills will go on to the President, and the President has confirmed that he will sign the bill as soon as it reaches his desk.

Both bills state that if a show is shown on TV and it had captioning, then it must also be captioned on the internet. Hulu.com is currently in compliance with this already.

However, you’ve released a new product called Hulu Plus for the iPhone, which I’ve had the opportunity to peruse, which if I recall correctly is also covered by the bill as it also covers smartphones that support captioning. The iPhone supports captioning. See:

http://www.apple.com/accessibility/iphone/hearing.html

So the application Hulu Plus would clearly not be in compliance with either version of the bills. While those bills have not been signed in law, I’d like to petition you to please consider implementing captioning on the iPhone application, and bring Hulu into compliance well in advance of either bills’ passage. This would not only put Hulu in a good position for the eventual passage for either bill, but also bring a smile to every face that rely on the captioning. Including myself.

Regards,
Don Cullen

As always, your feedback is welcome!

Related posts:

1. Save The Internet! A Letter To Congress
2. Hell, it’s about time: ADA Upgrade, Deaf Style! (HR3101)

For those who’re curious about the Purple advertisement I mentioned: Link

Now without further ado, here’s the aggressive ad from SnapVRS I mentioned:

Copyright (c) 2010 Snap Telecommunications, Inc. All rights reserved. Snap!VRS is the division of Snap Telecommunications, Inc. providing video relay services. Snap Telecommunications, Inc.
is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Aequus Technologies Corp. Sorenson, the S logo, and VP-200 are trademarks of Sorenson Communications.

To make sure the advertisement was actually from SnapVRS (the email header shows info@snapvrs.com as the reply to address, but shows it was sent on SnapVRS’s behalf by another service). I contacted SnapVRS directly to ask them to verify that they did indeed send it, and this is what they stated:

(8/31/2010 PST via AIM)
(10:22:11 AM) doncullen: Hi, do you have a moment?
(10:23:10 AM) asksnap: Thank you for contacting Snap!VRS Customer Service. How can I assist you?
(10:23:40 AM) doncullen: This will be quick. I just need confirmation that this email did indeed come from you.
(10:23:42 AM) doncullen: http://www.graphicmail.com/new/viewnewsletter2.aspx?SID=0&SiteID=54355&NewsletterID=582633
(10:23:47 AM) doncullen: Is that yours?
(10:25:22 AM) asksnap: Yes, that is a promotional e-mail. If you wish to edit your e-mail notifications, yu can log in to www.viable.net with your VSN and Password and de-select notifications
(10:26:21 AM) doncullen: That’s fine, I wanted to make sure it was from you.
(10:26:47 AM) doncullen: I wasn’t sure if it was actually from you or just someone pretending to be SnapVRS. Thanks for your time!
(10:29:41 AM) asksnap: No problem, thank you for contacting us. Goodbye.

As always, feedback are welcome!

Related posts:

1. Sorenson Responds to FCC About VRS Rate Cut Proposal
2. Snap!VRS is buying Viable Communications!
3. ViableVRS President Talks about Federal problems at Viable

A word of warning—this is a long article. So for those who’re impatient and just want a quick summary; it was an awesome experience, learned a lot, and definitely will be attending again for the next event. It wasn’t just about learning, it was about empowerment, unification, and bonding. I certainly made a lot of friends there! That was the summary—if you’d like details, read on. Otherwise, thanks for visiting!

Before I jump into my article, I’d like to state—I went there on a personal basis, not as a representative for Purple Communications. So anything stated here is of my own sole unique perspective. If some things I state ruffle some feathers, I apologize—but please remember: I tell it as I see it.

When I had first heard about DYUSA, my first thought was—it’s just another leadership camp. If that, even. I was already too busy with my job and college. I didn’t think it was worth checking out.

One day, a friend told me that I seriously needed a vacation; I hadn’t taken a vacation in years. Life was essentially taking a toll on me. That same day, a friend of mine told me about DYUSA. I had initially heard of it before, but this time the friend raved about how profound an experience it was, the kinds of friends you’d make from it, and most importantly, the new perspective on life it’d give you. I mentioned DYUSA to a couple of friends of mine—many had not heard of it, and those few who did were cynical. All of them suspected DYUSA was just an excuse to gather, have fun, and party hard. I mean, a group of yuppies? Right.

I thought about it for a while, and decided to go. Why? Two reasons: if the friend who recommended it was right, then I’m always up to a mind-opening experience. I love those kind of experiences—I’m not afraid of change, hell, I embrace it. And if the cynical friends of mine were right, that it was just an excuse to gather up and have a blast? Then I was fine by that too—I needed a vacation anyway.

I landed in Philadelphia, and headed straight for the camp expecting to see people standing around chatting, generally not really doing anything.

What I saw surprised me—everyone sitting attentively listening to two representatives from Sorenson speaking about what they had to offer to the deaf community. It was a Sorenson workshop. I watched the group for signs they were just being polite, listening without really listening. What I saw was enough to convince me that a college professor would kill to have those people in the professor’s class. Those people truly cared. They listened, fired questions at the representatives, demanded accountability, transparency, and explanations for various aspects of Sorenson’s past performance/attitude towards the deaf, and demanded to know Sorenson’s future aspirations. The entire time the representatives were taking heat, the people giving the heat were doing so in an extremely polite and educated manner.

Right at the workshop closing time, Ryan Commerson asked to say something before they concluded it. Ryan commended the representatives for having the guts to stand in front of the highly energized group, take criticisms and responding to them the best they could, and so forth. Ryan spoke for all of the group when he told the representatives that the group did not hold the representatives personally accountable, that the group understood that they simply were there representing Sorenson, that the group was deeply appreciative of their being there and for taking the heat.

Wow. That’s all I can say about the initial experience. Wow.

I was amazed at this—I had never seen anything like this- the way those people behaved with such respect, even while conducting a very passionate debate. Everyone actually cared.

This was the first time I actually wondered if I was out of my element. There were passionate thinkers, mover and shakers in the deaf community, people who actually make it a point of their existence to be influential in the political sphere.

Who am I? A tech support agent. I’m not even involved in the deaf community, nor political activism. Yes, I vote—but that’s easy to do and only takes a couple of minutes out of my time. Yes, I’m a member of MoveOn.org but only to the degree where I click on the obligatory links to sign petitions, pay them an annual donation amount, then literally move on. Yes, I donate to NAD on an annual basis, but that’s the extent of my involvement with NAD. Yes, I’ve fought against agencies such as the San Joaquin Blood Bank, and Nelnet for equal access for the deaf. But that’s only because I got burnt by the inequality of it when I attempted to use both agencies. In other words—unless it affected me directly and in an immediate localized manner—I usually didn’t bother actually becoming active in politics or activism. What I’ve done was nothing compared to what those people have done. Those people truly cared, and were selfless. So as I said earlier—for the first, and not the last time, I wondered whether I was out of my element. I wondered what I had gotten myself into.

As soon as the Sorenson workshop had been concluded, next came the NAD panel. I eyed my iPhone to see what time it was—it was well past 7. And yet there they are. Dressed casually, no less. I was surprised to see them there on a dressed down basis—it made them seem more humanized. They were there to learn more about DYUSA, and for DYUSA to explore the potential of establishing an ongoing relationship with NAD. Basically both organizations just wanted to see where they fit in the picture for each other. DYUSA explained more about who they were, why they existed, and so on. This was mainly for NAD’s benefit—but I benefitted from it as well since it was my first time there. They talked about deaf equality, activism, politics, unity, and bilingualism. With each statement uttered, it struck at the core of my being. It was as if someone was reading my mind—it immediately became apparent why DYUSA existed. NAD exists to unify the deaf for the better good of deaf people everywhere—DYUSA was similar to that concept with a single, but extremely important exception: it’s modeled for deaf youth. DYUSA was all about activism, getting out there, doing something. They eliminated parliamentary procedures for the most part, but retained the core concept to maintain some semblance of order. This fit in perfectly with the boundless energy of the youth.

I watched the faces of everyone who were listening or talking to NAD, and to my surprise—they were intently listening, and not only that—agreeing.

Let me repeat that. They were agreeing. They were actually agreeing.

I doubt I could even adequately explain to you why that was staggering to me—but I’ll try. There’s 42 people that I counted (not including NAD panel). Forty-two people of different backgrounds, different cultures, different ethics, different perspectives. And they all were in agreement. They were united. Every organization I’ve been in always has its’ factions, differing opinions on how things should be done (take republicans and democrats-they are nearly incapable of teamwork—this is why the democrats and republicans tend to fight for majority control of the house, senate, and white house—this allows them to control the agenda). There were no factions to be seen at DYUSA.

I err. I apologize, I err. I did see two factions: the vegetarians, and the omnivores. There was this mentality where when it was chowtime, the vegetarians would go get their chow first, and the omnivores had to wait until the vegetarians got theirs first. The DYUSA staff enforced this. I’m a semi-vegetarian myself—I do eat meat every once in a while, but am comfortable living without it. So when they stated this policy—my hunger made it a non-issue. Vegetarians go first, eh? No problem—I got in line for the chow and just made sure I abstained from the meat. Hunger issue solved. They were also huge on environmentalism, and they tended to look down at those who weren’t environmentally conscious. This had the side effect of marginalization. But the amazing thing is—in spite of this marginalization, even those who were marginalized just shrugged it off, and remained united, they remained involved. They continued to be steadfast in their passion for deaf equality.

Anyway, back to the NAD panel. The NAD panel also demonstrated a considerable degree of interest in DYUSA, but also displayed initial resistance to the idea of embracing DYUSA. So at that point, it was quite clear NAD would monitor DYUSA for potential future endeavors, had NAD’s blessing, but that’d be the extent of their involvement. I suspect NAD simply saw DYUSA as campers united towards a common purpose, not as an actual organization. But they appeared to be quite receptive to what we had to share with them. The panel discussion went way past its’ allocated time—and the panel didn’t even mind. They seemed to be enjoying themselves. Only once the campus security came to us and asked us to please leave the building did we realize we had overextended our workshop—it was quite past 10 at that time. Everyone departed, and continued their conversations outside. I took this opportunity to peek in on several of those conversations, and to my surprise, they were still discussing what was mentioned in the panel, they were still talking about affairs that affected deafhood everywhere. This, I had not expected. I had assumed that once the day was done, the conversations would devolve back to ordinary day to day conversations about work, family, entertainment, and so forth.

When I spoke with several others, became apparent the other attendees were of the same mentality—DYUSA drastically altered their perspective, and they would be bringing it back home to apply towards their own respective deaf communities. Of retaining contact and an active role in DYUSA, I heard very little of. A few of the staff even argued that the camp should be changed from being annual to biannual. The staff seemed to want DYUSA to be seen as an organization, but also advocated strongly adopting the biannual camp approach. They seemed to be in favor of keeping all contact online, due to attendees being from all over the nation. I had personal doubts about this approach—I felt this would only enforce the camp mentality rather than increase the organizational mentality that they were aiming for. But in the end they agree to change it to a biannual basis. But in spite of this, it was crystal clear that even as a camp, everyone considerably benefitted from the camp, and would be bringing home quite a lot of knowledge and empowerment.

For this first day of DYUSA camp, even if that was just the one day—it was of a considerable impact on me. It provided me with a lot of food for thought. I also saw a couple of old friends there, and seeing them in their political capacity caused me to reevaluate my perspective of them to a large degree. I also saw a few people I only had heard of, but finally had the opportunity to meet. One I had unfortunately formed a negative opinion prior to meeting, but this was due to my general wariness and distrust of those who are in a position of power and influence. Those kind of people can basically make or break you. The power and influence they wield has a tendency to go to their head. This person had met; I had seen quite often in his films. At DYUSA, I finally got to meet him in person, and—damn. Never have I been so happy to be wrong—he wasn’t what I had expected at all. If anything, he was incredibly humble, and quite passionate about his beliefs. I quickly could see why people tended to attribute a lot of weight on his opinion.

At this point, I just realized the article I’m writing is quickly becoming a quite long one. So I’ll just wrap this up—don’t worry, I will be writing more on my DYUSA experiences.

So in other words—DYUSA made me reevaluate everything. Not just life, but everything. Politics. My beliefs. My perspectives. My involvement in the deaf community.

DYUSA was definitely not kidding when they said it was all about visual revolution—they definitely brought a revolution to how I see everything! If you ever get a chance, you definitely should go to one of DYUSA’s camps- it’s very enlightening!

For those who want the website link: www.dyusa.org

Until next time!

Related posts:

1. A Deaf View: Alcatraz Cruises, Fun, But Not Deaf-Friendly.
2. Deaf? Good; it’s easy to hang up on you then!
3. Refusal of Deaf Blood Donors Update

The island was quite interesting, I was surprised to hear Al Capone, AKA “Scarface”, was imprisoned at the island in the past. I also learned that Native Americans had initially occupied the island in an effort to make a reservation out of it. While they failed in that task, the act itself prompted the government to hand over several reservations to them. The island certainly had a rich history!

One thing I found quite disappointing about the island was their lack of accommodations for the deaf.

After visiting the island, Alcatraz Cruises emailed me a multiple choice survey. I completed the survey. At the end of the survey, it asked me if I had anything else I’d like to share. I thought I’d take the time to address the lack of accommodations for the deaf.

This is what I wrote:

“I and my friend went to the island. We both are deaf. I have very little hearing left- it allows me to be able to tell if there’s loud sounds, but my hearing is not good enough to be able to pick out words. My friend is completely deaf. A deaf friend of ours who had already attended the island warned us that the island was not deaf friendly, with the exception of a film, and he recommended that when we get to the cell house, to request a refund for the audio tapes ($8 refund).

We got on the boat. We sat down. We saw a video on the TV talking about Alcatraz. No caption. So we were left out.

I heard the captain (at least I think it was him) talking to the guests via announcement speakers. We had no idea what he was saying. So we were left out again.

We got to the island, and walked over to the tour group. There was this elderly lady standing on top of something, she was outfitted in a ranger suit, so I figured she was one of the staff. She was talking to the group via a microphone. We had no idea what she was saying, so we were left out.

We went in the store. Told the cashier we were deaf, and were in need of a guide. The cashier said something verbally, which we did not understand. I repeated our request in writing. He instead of writing his response back, spoke verbally again and said something about going to the cell house. I assumed he meant to go there and get a refund. So we left.

We walked to the theater, and saw it was captioned. Finally, something we could engage with! We watched the short film, then left to see the rest of the island. Eventually after checking out the island, we checked out the cell house. There were several staff there giving instructions to visitors, but it was spoken instructions. We had no idea where to go to next. They seemed to be giving out audio tapes. That was useless for me and my friend. So we just went to request a refund as our friend had recommended. The staff offered an English book that had everything on the audio tapes transcripted, we both declined because this meant we’d have to read and not be able to take in the view, and reading was time consuming when we had other plans for after the island. The staff were quite cooperative in giving us a refund for the audio tapes– we got a $8 refund each. We then explored the cell house, then we left the island.

The staff were quite friendly, even though communication was nearly impossible.

Our friend who warned us that the island wasn’t deaf-friendly (no sign language, no interpreters, no captioning on cruise video, no staff to tell us what the announcer on the boat was saying, no guide on the island to direct us either by written or signed instruction, etc) was most certainly right– the island and cruise is definitely not accommodating to the deaf.

…

While the island itself was quite fascinating, and it was quite fun to explore the island, I decided I would be not recommending visiting the island to anyone. If anyone asks us about the island, I will warn them about the lack of accommodations, and I will strongly advise them to get a refund at the cell house if they choose to go to the island anyway.

But I’d like to say that while there were no accommodations, the staff were extremely friendly, understanding, cooperative, and courteous.

I sincerely hope after reading this, Alcatraz Cruises will put in the effort to be able to effectively accommodate the deaf, even if it requires advance notice so you can make arrangements. Once you have put into place a structure that will accommodate the deaf, please do let me know so we both can revisit the island, and re-assess whether we should recommend visiting the island to others.

You may contact me via email.

Thank you for taking the time to read my feedback. It most certainly is appreciated. “

Just thought I’d share what I wrote, and my experiences with you. As always, feedback is appreciated.

Related posts:

1. Deaf? Good; it’s easy to hang up on you then!
2. My Experiences: Deaf Youth USA, Visual Revolution (Philadelphia, 2010)
3. Hell, it’s about time: ADA Upgrade, Deaf Style! (HR3101)

I checked the IP address, geolocated the IP, and am able to verify that the comment was indeed left from the Sorenson Communications Headquarters in Utah. I have not yet verified whether it was the actual person, but since the IP address confirms that it was posted from Sorenson, I see no reason to doubt whether he is other than who he says he is. The visitor states he is Michael D. Maddix, Director of Government and Regulatory Affairs. This is what he wanted to share with us:

The FCC’s Bureau of Consumer and Governmental Affairs recently issued a statement stating that the FCC supports VRS and that VRS is not threatened by the FCC’s Public Notice proposing rates for VRS. This statement from the FCC has also appeared on numerous websites.

Sorenson Communications is not at all surprised to hear that the FCC supports the mandate in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to provide functionally equivalent telecommunications for the deaf. But the FCC fails to mention that in addition to “functional equivalent telecommunications for the deaf,” the ADA also requires nationwide access and improvements in technology and efficiency. The FCC is completely incorrect to say that VRS as we know it today is not threatened by its April 30 VRS rate proposal.

Sorenson provides the vast majority of VRS to the deaf community. Sorenson has provided VRS access to more deaf individuals than any other provider and continues to be the frontrunner in providing access and support to deaf individuals who have never before used VRS service. Sorenson developed the first deaf-centric videophone offering the most functionally- equivalent communication service available. And Sorenson has done all of this efficiently, as we continue to develop next generation solutions that the deaf community has been greatly anticipating.

The rates that the FCC is endorsing will drive Sorenson, the leading provider of VRS, into bankruptcy. The FCC’s proposed compensation to Sorenson is $3.89 per minute. Sorenson’s true and audited costs are over $5 per minute. The FCC is incorrect in their assessment of what would happen if its proposal were adopted. Sorenson understands completely the impact the proposed rate would have on its business. It would be disastrous for consumers. If Sorenson is unable to sustain their business at $3.89 per minute, how can the FCC suggest that any other provider would be able to service Sorenson’s users at such a low rate?

Sorenson continues to strongly urge everyone who relies on VRS to communicate to tell the FCC the facts: The FCC’s proposed rate will force Sorenson into bankruptcy and will end VRS as we know it today. The FCC Chairman and Commissioners must be made to understand that any rate proposal that resembles the April 30 Public Notice, will be a death blow to VRS and to the ADA’s mandate to provide functionally equivalent telecommunications service, national access, technology improvements and efficiency for deaf telecommunication.

Michael D. Maddix
Director of Government and Regulatory Affairs
Sorenson Communications, Inc.

Since the comment was left for the purpose of responding to FCC, I’ll leave it for you guys to make of it what you will. I already have a couple of thoughts about Michael’s response, but I’ll wait and see what happens next, especially with FCC already responding across the internet, and now NAD weighting in.

Related posts:

1. VRS Rate Cuts NOT the death of VRS
2. SnapVRS Gone Aggressive Against Sorenson!
3. NAD Responds to the FCC Declaratory Ruling

As many of you already know, I am employed by PurpleVRS as a tier 2 tech support dude. So I’m in an unique position to be able to tell you whether the rate cut has a significant impact on the VRS industry.

In layman’s terms: VRS will not die or go bankrupt. Purple will be fine. The other VRS providers will be fine. The only difference is that greed is now no longer an option.

For those of you who don’t really care about details, feel free to relax, skip the rest of this post, and continue with your day.

Now for the details.

Sorenson has stated to the FCC:

“The FCC should not adopt either of NECA’s proposals for basing rates on providers’ historical costs. Both of these proposals would result in bankruptcy, chaos, and devastation for the deaf. One of these proposals prescribes rates so low that they would immediately drive all VRS providers out of business, forcing deaf consumers to revert to the laborious process of typing their relayed communications, and both of the historic-cost proposals would drive Sorenson out of business, stranding tens of thousands of deaf consumers and making it uneconomic for them to be served by any other provider. The Commission lacks authority under the ADA to adopt any VRS rate that would wreak such devastation.”

Allow me to address Sorenson’s comments. “Bankruptcy, chaos, and devastation for the deaf”? Come on, give me a break. Don’t be so melodramatic. At the very worse, this will cause Sorenson to scale back on their operations a little bit, but not by much. But that’s only for Sorenson. Bankruptcy for the deaf? I’m deaf, and I can tell you that the VRS rate cut won’t make ME or any other deaf people go bankrupt. Chaos? Nah, there’ll always be VRS providers, so I don’t see any chaos happening to me or deaf people elsewhere. Devastation? Same thing as chaos. Once again, this is just melodrama.

“Immediately drive all VRS providers out of business, forcing deaf consumers to revert to the laborious process of typing their relayed communications”—how can Sorenson claim to speak for the other VRS providers? NO, IT DOES NOT MEAN THE END OF VRS PROVIDERS! This will not drive them into bankruptcy. While I cannot speak for PurpleVRS, and I am not allowed to reference anything I learn from inside PurpleVRS, I can definitely tell you that the impressions I’ve gotten here is that Purple is not concerned about the VRS rate cuts. Purple is fine with it. That alone tells me that the claims from Sorenson that it will potentially drive VRS providers into bankruptcy are completely false.

As to whether it would cause Sorenson to go bankrupt—I doubt this would happen. But would this affect Sorenson considerably? Possibly. But not for the reasons you expect. Sorenson promised their investors 11% interest gain from their investments—but thanks to the VRS rate cuts, this would be impossible if they continue operations as is. So they have a choice: either back down from the 11% interest gain promise and cost the investors money, or cut back on operations, lay off their employees, just so their investors will continue to make money. If the management of Sorenson chooses to side with the investors over the employees, then that’s their choice. But the employees should not hold FCC responsible for this, they should hold their management accountable for this. For more information, someone has already made a vlog on this:

The links Jon in the above vlog refers to are:

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-761A1.pdf
• http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1115548520100114

ZVRS proposed a different tiered system. This is what they proposed:

• Tier 1: $7.55 for 0 to 100,000 minutes
• Tier 2: $6.75 for 100,000 minutes to 1 million minutes
• Tier 3: $6.20 for 1 million to 2 million minutes
• Tier 4: $5.70 for 2 million to 3 million minutes
• Tier 5: $5.25 for 3 million minutes and above

I can see why they proposed this. This ensures evenly decreasing rates from the lowest to the highest, rather, than FCC’s low to high to low (three tiered) system. But I disagree with this logic—this would discourage growth, and result in too many small VRS providers.

FCC’s proposed 3 tier system motivates small VRS providers to grow to the second tier, but also discourages them from growing too large—ensuring that no monopoly will occur, similar to what currently exists with Sorenson controlling the majority of the market.

The VRS rate cuts will most definitely have a significant impact on the VRS industry. To date, Sorenson has had a monopoly on the VRS industry. This rate change results in a more level playing field for VRS providers—this will reduce Sorenson’s monopoly, while increasing other VRS providers’ ability to gain market share. So I am in full support of the FCC VRS rate cut and tiered system as introduced by FCC.

I recently filed a comment with the FCC stating this:

“I am in full support of the VRS Pay Rate cut. Don’t let Sorenson and the others change your mind.

This will level the playing field, eliminate the greed factor, and ensure the VRS providers can compete honestly and fairly.”

Most of the data I obtained are from the vlog above, and also from http://www.edsalert.com/

As always, comments are welcome.

Related posts:

1. Sorenson Responds to FCC About VRS Rate Cut Proposal
2. FCC to VRS Providers: PAY US BACK!
3. Two from Viable Plead Guilty in VRS Fraud

So I emailed them a response. I will be copying this into a letter, printing it out, then will send it via standard mail so they have a hard copy of it.

I have already begun looking for an attorney, if you know of one, the referral would be appreciated.

Here is the email from me to Nelnet:

Hi-

Online password failed due to my not remembering the answer to one of the security questions.

I’m deaf, so I have to call via the relay services. I called Nelnet, only to be told I cannot make my payment via phone or have my password reset due to the phone call being via third party. I stated to you over the phone that I would be taking legal action.

So consider this your second notice, this time via email. I will be submitting you a similar letter via mail just to make sure the message gets across.

This is illegal.

See:
(2) Telecommunications Relay Services, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 12 F.C.C.R. 1152, 1169 (Jan. 14, 1997).

For clarification on the American with Disabilities Act, Telecommunications act of 1996, and how it impacts Nelnet on handling calls placed via Video Relay Services, please visit:

http://www.nad.org/issues/telephone-and-relay-services/relay-services/message-businesses-dont-hang

You tried to placate me by telling me all I have to do was sign a third party release form and fax/email it back to you. You failed to take into consideration that this does not constitute as functional equivalency– hearing people can call you, but I have to sign a form before I can call you? I’m sorry, but that’s simply unfair for the deaf.

Then there’s also a very important factor: I don’t have a fax or printer, nor a scanner. Which means I’d have to go down to Kinko’s, PAY to be able to print out your form, sign it, then PAY again to have it faxed to you, then wait for you to contact me to confirm I may now contact you via VRS, THEN finally call you simply to make my monthly payment. This method means I will be late with this month’s payment, so you will then also assess me a late fee.

In short, you’re making me pay a penalty for being deaf.

I tried to explain all of this to you via phone, and even requested to speak to a supervisor, who then informed me that the policy stands, that I cannot make my payment nor reset my password, that I must adhere to your policy, even though it’s in clear violation of the law.

In face of your failure to comply with the law, I have gone ahead and filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, and brought this issue to the attention of the California State Attorney General, and also called my congressman. I also notified the National Association of the Deaf, and will be contacting the Federal Disability Law Center in Washington DC to investigate all possible avenues for bringing Nelnet into full compliance with the law.

I will also be seeking an attorney to pursue further legal action. Since you have denied me ability to remit payment, and since what you’re asking me to do is a violation of law, out of principle, I will not comply with your request to sign the third party form, and will also not pay any late fees, interest, and any other financial charges accrued during the period of your refusing to process VRS calls. Once you start processing VRS as standard calls without requiring any further action on the disabled person’s part, I will then promptly call you to both reset my password and make my payment. As stated, even if you begin accepting VRS calls, I will not pay you interest, late fees, as well as any other charges resulting from your denial of my ability to remit payment via phone. You will be expected to dismiss those fees/charges, and waive interest during this period. Failure to do so will result in my seeking legal action and legal redress.

Regards,
Don Cullen

Let’s see if that gets a response from them. On that note, I’ll go call the Federal Disability Law in Washington, DC. Maybe Kelby Brick will know of a decent attorney since he’s a VRS activist, I’ll email him for advice and to see if he can give me an referral.

Related posts:

1. Nelnet Refusing Calls from VRS Customers
2. ViableVRS Slammed by Federal Class Action Lawsuits
3. IP-VRS Acquired by HOVRS

Until now, that is. I forgot my password. So I called Nelnet.

Nelnet, a college loan financing company, has been refusing to process my calls. They are demanding that I print out a form, sign it, and fax/scan it and send it back to them if I want to be able to call them via VRS. I tried to speak to a Nelnet supervisor about this, but the Nelnet supervisor was very uncooperative, and said policy is policy– they do not permit third party calls, even if it’s the VRS.

I was having problems signing on their website to make my usual monthly payment, so I called them to reset the login on the website. They refused to, in spite of my providing them with all correct self-identifying information, claiming they cannot reset the login due to the call being a third party call. I then asked to pay my balance so it would not be past due. They declined to accept the payment due to it being a “third party call”.

I don’t have a fax, nor a printer. Which means if they email the form to me, I have to go to Kinko’s just to be able to print it out, sign it, then fax it back to them. I could use my workplace fax machine, but I don’t feel comfortable using my job’s equipment for personal purposes. I’m sure I could get permission, but I’d rather avoid it when possible.

This seems quite unfair– I’m unable to pay my balance either via website or via phone. I cannot mail in my payment because I’m required to have the Nelnet bill stub so they’re able to process the payment properly.

While I could do this– seems like too much hassle, and very unfair– how is this functional equivalency when any hearing person can easily call them and have their call processed?

I may be mistaken, and feel free to correct me if that’s indeed the case, but such a practice is a violation of the law (either ADA or FCC policy, not sure which one, if not both). I’ll have to do research to find out what law the incident is in violation of, find out reference numbers, so I can write Nelnet a letter explaining their situation.

I attempted to contact my state (California) attorney general to see what they can do to contribute towards a resolution of my situation, but their Public Inquiry Unit call center was apparently closed early. So I called my local Congressman Tom McClintock’s district office. Someone there picked up, and after I explained the situation, the person said they knew someone who worked at the State Attorney General office, and asked for my contact information. I provided it to the person, and the person said they would pass along my information to them and that they would be in contact with me.

They also added that because it was a private corporation, the Attorney General was the only one that could assist in this matter, that the Congressman was only able to deal with governmental agencies.

The VI that was processing my call when I called the congressman at the end of the call suggested I contact the Federal Disability Law Center in Washington, DC to see what options they could offer me, so I will be calling them tomorrow.

I also emailed the National Association of the Deaf (and also renewed my membership, since I had let it lapse) to see what options or advice NAD could offer.

I have a few weeks before I’m very much past due, at which point if a resolution has not been reached, I’ll probably just cave and just ask my manager for his okay for my using the fax machine for personal use.

If you guys have any ideas on how to best handle this, feedback would be appreciated.

Related posts:

1. Taking Action Against Nelnet for Refusing VRS Calls
2. Deaf? Good; it’s easy to hang up on you then!
3. Refusal of Deaf Blood Donors Update

I thought she shared several good points. It is good to see that the NAD is addressing it.

As always, the short version as quoted from the NAD article:

• The TRS Fund does not pay for VRS calls placed for the purpose of generating compensable minutes. We agree.
• The TRS Fund does not pay for VRS Voice Carry Over calls between two hearing people.  We agree.
• The TRS Fund does not pay for VRS calls between two people who are both physically located outside the United States (international-to-international calls). We think the TRS Fund should pay for international-to-international calls made by people who live in the United States but who are traveling outside the United States.
• The TRS Fund pays differently for VRS calls made by or to a VRS provider’s (deaf or hearing) employees and contractors.  The TRS Fund pays for VRS calls made by or a to a VRS consumer (non-employee / non-contractor) on a “per-minute basis.”  The TRS Fund pays for VRS calls made by or to a VRS provider’s employee or contractor as a “business expense.”  We have concerns about this part of the Declaratory Ruling.

I added emphasis to indicate NAD’s response to each specific section of the ruling.

The rest are just details and clarifications regarding NAD’s response. Here’s the full article as quoted from the NAD article, along with the vlog. [ source ]

On February 25, 2010, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a Declaratory Ruling (DA 10-314). In the Declaratory Ruling, the FCC Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) addressed payment for certain types of Video Relay Service (VRS) by the Interstate Telecommunications Relay Service Fund (TRS Fund). The National Association of the Deaf (NAD) commends the FCC for taking action, but we also have concerns about the Declaratory Ruling.

NAD Responses

• The TRS Fund does not pay for VRS calls placed for the purpose of generating compensable minutes.  We agree.
• The TRS Fund does not pay for VRS Voice Carry Over calls between two hearing people.  We agree.
• The TRS Fund does not pay for VRS calls between two people who are both physically located outside the United States (international-to-international calls). We think the TRS Fund should pay for international-to-international calls made by people who live in the United States but who are traveling outside the United States.
• The TRS Fund pays differently for VRS calls made by or to a VRS provider’s (deaf or hearing) employees and contractors.  The TRS Fund pays for VRS calls made by or a to a VRS consumer (non-employee / non-contractor) on a “per-minute basis.”  The TRS Fund pays for VRS calls made by or to a VRS provider’s employee or contractor as a “business expense.”  We have concerns about this part of the Declaratory Ruling.

NAD Concerns

We believe that this is a new rule that the FCC adopted without a notice and comment rulemaking proceeding.  The FCC must publish a public notice and take public comment before creating new rules.

The Declaratory Ruling also suggests that the TRS Fund paid VRS providers twice for VRS calls made by their employees and contractors:  (1) on a per-minute basis; and (2) as a business expense.  We thought VRS providers were paid only once – on a per-minute basis – for VRS calls made by their employees and contractors.

The FCC wants the TRS Fund to pay VRS providers for the cost of employee and contractor VRS calls as a business expense.  We can support this goal.  The TRS Fund pays for the reasonable business expenses of VRS providers.  However, we are not sure that the FCC chose the right method for the TRS Fund to pay this business expense.

The ADA established a system to provide nationwide relay services.  The cost to provide relay services should not be a factor (positive or negative) for any employer, including VRS providers, when hiring people who need relay services to do their jobs.

NAD and Other Consumer Groups Met with the FCC

On March 2, 2010, the NAD and other consumer groups met with Joel Gurin, the new Chief of the CGB, and other CGB staff.  We expressed our disappointment that the FCC did not provide an opportunity for comments from consumers and other stakeholders before issuing the Declaratory Ruling.  We asked the FCC to provide this opportunity before issuing orders and rulings in the future.  We want to ensure functional equivalency, access to VRS, clear rules, and transparent rulemaking, and avoid unintended consequences.

During that meeting, Mr. Gurin expressed the FCC’s commitment to the continuation of the relay service program, including VRS.  Mr. Gurin also understood that consumers want to have a choice of providers.  We look forward to working with the CGB and meeting with the CGB in the future on a more regular basis.

We commend the FCC’s effort to protect the integrity of the TRS Fund.  However, the FCC may have unintentionally produced a rule that impacts the civil rights of relay service users.  VRS users are caught in the “crossfire” between the FCC and VRS providers.  We urge the FCC to publish a public notice and take public comments to consider other methods to pay VRS providers for VRS calls made by or to their employees and contractors.

Related posts:

1. FCC Vlog on FCC VRS Declaratory Ruling
2. Purple and FCC Hugs and Makes Up!
3. PurpleVRS: Still Alive, and Still Fighting!

FCC and Purple reached an agreement and made peace. Purple has issued a press release. Purple has survived the previous crisis, and will continue to serve customers!

For those of you, who’re like me and have short attention spans, like usual, here’s the summary, followed by the press release for you guys to glaze over.

While Purple and FCC has reached an agreement, I’d like to remind you all—this is only an INTERIM AGREEMENT (meaning they reached an agreement about the basic ideas, but are still debating about the details).

Now for the summary I promised you. Hopefully, your eyes haven’t glazed over yet.

• Purple has agreed to not challenge FCC’s recent declaratory ruling
• Accept a debt to FCC to the tune of as much as 20 million dollars.
• They expect to reach a full agreement about the rest of details within 6 months.
• This full agreement in 6 months will also include a plan for paying back FCC.
• FCC has released funds owed to Purple from past due reimbursement
• As a result, Purple has terminated their litigation against FCC

That’s all of it. The first one about Purple agreeing to not fight FCC’s recent declaratory ruling is a big ouch, since several companies and organizations are up in arms about it. I was going to email our PR department to find out what Purple had to say about their agreeing to this condition, but saw Purple’s CEO Dan Luis had already addressed it in the press release:

“Although we believed that the new Declaratory Ruling included new definitions and guidelines around compensability of TRS services, particularly regarding use of VRS services by Deaf and Hard of Hearing employees, it was our determination that it was in our best interest that we agree not to challenge the Declaratory Ruling so we could keep our operations and services intact for our customers,”

In other words, due to Purple’s fiscal crisis and need for past due funds owed by FCC, Purple needed to agree to this condition, as doing so meant Purple’s survival as a company.

Personally, this is very good news for me, and the rest of other employees, as it means we get to keep our jobs, and it also is a very good news for customers, as they get to continue using our services!

UPDATE: FCC has also issued an announcement with their own perspective of the agreement. That announcement from the FCC is also included below. I won’t be summarizing that one since they’re pretty much saying the same thing what Purple said.

As promised, here’s the press release from Purple [source (3/9/10)]:

PURPLE COMMUNICATIONS AND FCC REACH INTERIM AGREEMENT

Framework for Global Settlement Achieved – Funds Released

Rocklin, California – March 9, 2010 — Purple Communications™, Inc. (OTC: PRPL) (“Purple”), a leading provider of text and video relay and on-site interpreting services for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing announced that it has reached an interim agreement with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding payment demands made by the FCC in connection with the FCC’s February 25, 2010 Declaratory Ruling.

The Declaratory Ruling sets forth guidelines for interpreting and applying the FCC’s rules and regulations regarding text and video relay services. The Declaratory Ruling excludes certain types of video relay calls from compensation by the TRS Fund, both prospectively and retroactively. In anticipation of, and contemporaneous with, the Declaratory Ruling, the FCC made immediate payment demands on Purple for reimbursement to the TRS Fund and notified Purple that it would withhold reimbursements to Purple from the TRS Fund. With its current and future revenue stream suspended, Purple appealed the Declaratory Ruling to both the FCC and to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Purple’s appeal to the DC Circuit sought an immediate stay of the Declaratory Ruling.

Purple now has reached an interim agreement with the FCC that will enable Purple to continue operating while it continues to work with the FCC to negotiate a broader global settlement. In reaching this interim agreement, Purple agreed to accept and not challenge the Declaratory Ruling and, to assume a debt to the TRS Fund in an amount as much as $20 million. The broader global settlement is expected within 180-days which will include, among other things, a structured repayment plan. Upon execution of the interim agreement, the FCC released funds owing to Purple and Purple withdrew its litigation against the FCC.

“Although we believed that the new Declaratory Ruling included new definitions and guidelines around compensability of TRS services, particularly regarding use of VRS services by Deaf and Hard of Hearing employees, it was our determination that it was in our best interest that we agree not to challenge the Declaratory Ruling so we could keep our operations and services intact for our customers,” said Dan Luis, CEO of Purple. “We at the company were inspired by the support we received and have every intention of continuing to fulfill our mission of serving the deaf community by providing high-quality and innovative services, while working with consumers, other providers, and the FCC to shape the dialogue of our industry.”

“I would like to thank our loyal employees, contractors, and customers for their tremendous outpouring of support for Purple over this last week,” added Ronald E. Obray, Purple’s vice chairman. “The support shown for Purple this last week demonstrates the important role smaller providers like Purple play in ensuring that a competitive environment exists for consumers. Every phone call a consumer makes is like a vote; and when they choose a smaller provider for their phone call, they are voting for choice and competition instead of a market controlled by a single provider.”

About Purple

Purple Communications is a leading provider of onsite interpreting services, video relay and text relay services, and video remote interpreting, offering a wide array of options designed to meet the varied communication needs of its customers. The Company’s vision is to enable free-flowing communication between people, inclusive of differences in abilities, languages, or locations. For more information on the Company or its services, visit www.purple.us, by Internet relay by visiting www.ip-relay.com, or by video phone by connecting to purple.tv.

“i711,” “Purple,” and the Purple logo are registered trademarks of Purple Communications, Inc. “Purple Mail,” “Powered by Purple,” “i711.com,” “My IP-Relay,” “IP-Relay.com,” “One-Tap Redial,” and “P3″ are either registered trademarks, trademarks, or service marks of Purple Communications, Inc. Other names may be trademarks of their respective owners.

—————————-

And now the announcement from the FCC [source (PDF)] :

NEWS

Federal Communications Commission News Media Information 202 / 418-0500445 12th Street, S.W. Internet: http://www.fcc.gov
TTY: 1-888-835-5322

Washington, D. C. 20554

This is an unofficial announcement of Commission action. Release of the full text of a Commission order constitutes official action.
See MCI v. FCC. 515 F 2d 385 (D.C. Circ 1974).

For Immediate Release: News Media Contact:
March 9, 2010 Rosemary Kimball at (202) 418-0511

e-mail: rosemary.kimball@fcc.gov

PURPLE COMMUNICATIONS ACKNOWLEDGES DEBT,
BEGINS PAYBACK TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS RELAY FUND

Washington, DC — Purple Communications, a provider of telecommunications relay
services, has signed an agreement with the FCC that puts in place the framework for repayment
of funds that were inappropriately paid to the company. Under this agreement, Purple
“acknowledges that the FCC [has stated that Purple has] a debt amounting to $18,459,064, and
has determined not to challenge the FCC’s position.” Under the agreement, the funds will be
repaid to the National Exchange Carriers Association (NECA), which administers the
government fund that pays for relay services for deaf and hard-of-hearing consumers. In return
for this commitment, the FCC will instruct NECA to release payment to Purple for relay services
provided in the month of December 2009, and will continue to reimburse for legitimate relay
services provided by Purple month by month.

“We’re pleased that Purple has acknowledged its debt to the government and agreed to
repay it,” said Joel Gurin, Chief of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau of the FCC.
“Because this agreement enables Purple to continue doing business, it will also benefit Purple’s
customers and employees. We look forward to Purple’s fulfillment of this agreement in the
months ahead.”

This action follows a Declaratory Ruling, issued by the Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau of the FCC on February 25, that reaffirms the FCC’s rules regarding which calls
can be compensated from the government relay fund. Relay services allow people with hearing
disabilities to communicate with hearing people. In video relay service (VRS), this is done
through an interpreter who can translate speech into American Sign Language and vice versa.

The Declaratory Ruling restates that government funds can only be used to pay for relay
service for calls that involve at least one party in the United States. In addition, the Ruling
restates that relay service for any calls made to or from the employees of a VRS provider – for
example, for marketing or other business purposes – cannot be paid for at the minute-by-minute
rate used to calculate payments for relay services provided to consumers. The costs of these
business calls can, however, be submitted by VRS companies as part of the overhead that is used
to calculate how the government will reimburse them.

The FCC calculated that Purple had been inappropriately paid by NECA for $18.4
million in calls that either began and ended outside the U.S., or that were made to or from Purple
employees. Purple has agreed to work with the FCC on a plan to repay this amount over time,
and will have 180 days to develop a repayment plan with the FCC. Purple has also agreed to
make an initial payment after it receives its December payment from NECA. While this
agreement addresses Purple’s debt obligation to the government, it does not affect any possible
government investigations into Purple’s business practices.

- FCC-

Related posts:

1. PurpleVRS: Still Alive, and Still Fighting!
2. NAD Responds to the FCC Declaratory Ruling
3. FCC Vlog on FCC VRS Declaratory Ruling